Bernard Muller wrote:I have a new blog post on a key point for my case. Feel free to comment at will.
Title: Did the early Galilean pillars of the Church of Jerusalem (Peter, John & Jesus' brother James) become Christians?
Teaser: There is an abundance of evidence and clues leading to a NO answer, despite the effort by the early Christian authors to show otherwise.
URL:
http://historical-jesus.info/108.html
Bernard,
I can agree with you that early Christian authors such as Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria and Origen were eager to claim James, at least, as one of their own.
Hegesippus, Five Books [on the History of the Church, via Eusebius of Caesarea, History of the Church 2.23.3-19
3) ... Hegesippus, who lived immediately after the apostles, gives the most accurate account in the fifth book of his memoirs. He writes as follows:
4) James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the church in conjunction with the apostles. He has been called the just by all from the times of the Lord to the present day, for there were many that bore the name of James. ...
8) Now some of the seven sects, which existed among the people and which have been mentioned by me in the memoirs, asked him: What is the gate of Jesus? And he replied that it was the savior.
9) On account of these words some believed that Jesus is the Christ. But the sects mentioned above did not believe either in a resurrection or in the coming of one to give to every man according to his works. But as many as believed did so on account of James.
10) Therefore, when many even of the rulers believed, there was a commotion among the Jews and scribes and Pharisees, who said that there was danger that the whole people would be looking for Jesus as the Christ. ...
16) So they ... said to each other: Let us stone James the just. And they began to stone him, ...
19) ... And James was so marvelous a one, and so acclaimed among all the rest for his justice, that the sensible ones of the Jews opined that this [stoning/clubbing of James] was the cause of the siege of Jerusalem, which happened immediately after his martyrdom for no other reason than their daring act against him.
Hegesippus, Five Books, via Eusebius of Caesarea, History of the Church, 4.22.4
4) [Hegesippus] also describes the beginnings of the heresies which arose in his time in the following words:
4b) And after James the just had suffered martyrdom, as the Lord had also on the same account, Symeon, the son of the uncle of the Lord, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop. All proposed him as second bishop because he was a cousin of the Lord. Therefore they called the church a virgin, for it was not yet corrupted by vain discourses.
Clement of Alexandria, Hypotyposeis (lost), via Eusebius, History of the Church 2.1.3-6
3) But Clement in the sixth book of his Hypotyposeis writes as follows: For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of the savior, as if also preferred by the Lord, did not strive for glory, but rather elected James the just to be bishop of Jerusalem.
4) And the same [Clement] in the seventh book of the same work says also these things concerning him: The Lord after the resurrection delivered knowledge to James the just and to John and to Peter, and they delivered it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one.
5) But there were two Jameses, one being the just one, who was cast down from the pinnacle and was beaten unto death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded.
6) Paul indeed makes mention of the same just one, writing: But I did not see any other of the apostles except James the brother of the Lord
Origen, Against Celsus 1.47b-d
b) Now he [Josephus] himself, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put Christ to death, who was a prophet, nevertheless says, being albeit against his will not far from the truth, that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the just, who was a brother of Jesus called Christ, the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice.
c) [[In an aside by Origen, he says]Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine.]
d) If, then, he says that it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on account of Jesus Christ? Of his divinity so many churches are witnesses, composed of those who have been convened from a flood of sins and have joined themselves to the creator, and who refer all their actions to his good pleasure.
Origen, On Matthew 13.55
a) And this James is the one whom Paul says he saw in the epistle to the Galatians, saying: But I did not see any other of the apostles except James the brother of the Lord.
b) And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ.
c) And the wonderful thing is that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great;
d) and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James. And Jude wrote an epistle short in lines but full of the healthy words of heaven; in the preface he has said: Jude, servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James. But concerning Joseph and Simon we have nothing to relate.
Clearly, Clement thought that the Cephas in Galatians was same as Peter. However, Clement and Origen's connection of this James to Jesus is based on Galatians:
1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days.
1:19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the brother of the Lord.
Now I had come to the conclusion (completely independently of this evidence under discussion) that the Cephas, James & John which Paul claims to have conferred with were not followers of Jesus but rather priests in Jerusalem in charge of managing the activity of financial apostles. Paul was pitching to them his idea that God-fearing gentiles could be considered part of greater Israel if these priests would accept their freewill offerings, which Paul hoped to collect as a financial apostle. This is all kind of speculative, based on known practices of later times (the Jewish Patriarch in Galilee was permitted by the Roman authorities to accept freewill offerings to help fellow Judeans, collected by folks called apostles) which I believe were also likely practiced in pre-war times.
From Josephus' testimony [Ant. XIV, 112-113] we understand that the Asian Jews used to collect their sacred monies even before Caesar’s time, and this is confirmed by Cicero, who mentions four cities of Asia — Apamea, Laodicea, Adramyttium and Pergamum — where the Jews deposited the money meant to reach the Temple of Jerusalem in the sixties BCE (Pro Flacco, 28, 68).
On this occasion, Cicero observes that “every year it was customary to send gold to Jerusalem on the order of the Jews from Italy and from all our provinces” (Pro Flacco, 28,67). This statement provides two important pieces of information. One, the Jews could send their contributions to Jerusalem from all the places where they lived,
ex Italia el ex omnibus nostris provinciis, even before Caesar’s time. Two, the expression “customary” used by Cicero in this context,
cum aurum ludaeorum nomine quotannis... exportari soleret (Pro Flacco, 28, 67), implies that this was not, in Cicero’s times, a formal legal right. Unlike Josephus. Cicero was a lawyer and the use of the verb
soleret in this context is therefore highly meaningful, inasmuch as it suggests that the right to send the Jewish monies to Jerusalem was not an official, legal one, but rather a
de facto recognition.
Jewish Rights in the Roman World: The Greek and Roman Documents Quoted by Josephus Flavius, by Miriam Pucci Ben Zeev (1998).
https://books.google.com/books?id=O7mL4 ... 68&f=false
The money was ultimately returned to the Judeans on appeal to the Roman authorities, but Flaccus, defended by Cicero was exonerated as "just doing his job."
(Josephus, Ant 14:110-111) And let no one wonder that there was so much wealth in our temple, since all the Jews throughout the habitable earth, and those who worshipped God, nay, even those of Asia and Europe, sent their contributions to it, and this from very ancient times.
111 Nor is the size of these sums without its attestation; nor is that greatness owing to our vanity, as raising it without ground to so great a height: but there are many witnesses to it, and particularly Strabo of Cappadocia
Getting back to your assertion, I am not so willing to take the books of the NT at face value as you seem to be. IMHO the phrase "brother of the Lord" in 1:19b is later interpretation by my proposed Christian editor, along with 2:7b-8:
2:7b just as Peter had been entrusted with the good news to the circumcised 2:8 (for he who worked through Peter for the mission to the circumcised worked through me also for the Gentiles)
Note the change from Cephas to Peter, as the Pauline tradition is adopted, and adapted, into the Christian tradition.
So, in other words, the Peter, James & John, disciples (actually relatives) of Jesus, are melded with the Cephas, James and John of Galatians, who were not the same animals at all.
But, that's just me ...
DCH
